MAURICE W. INNIS versus LILY KAZROONI @ LILY ARIF SHAIKH

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 09-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PANKAJ MITHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 494 : 2026 INSC 340
Maurice W. Innis 
v. 
Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh
(Civil Appeal No. 4321 of 2026)
09 April 2026
[Pankaj Mithal* and Prasanna. B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue pertains to the execution of a compromise decree passed 
in a civil suit; and whether the executing court can go beyond the 
decree and has to execute the decree as it stands without making 
any modifications therein.
Headnotes†
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.47 – Questions to be 
determined by the Court executing decree – Execution of a 
compromise decree passed in a suit – Defendant-respondent 
became decree holder and the plaintiff-appellant became 
judgment debtor – Executing Court in the execution petition 
modified the compromise decree by varying the area allotted 
to the parties under the compromise decree and allotted them 
some different portions – Review petition by the defendant-
respondent – Petition allowed and the modifications made 
by the Executing Court in the original compromise decree 
further modified – Thereagainst writ petition by the plaintiff-
appellant challenging the orders passed by the Executing 
Court, the order passed on review petition as well as the order 
directing the delivery of possession – Dismissed by the High 
Court – Correctness:
Held: Executing Court has to strictly conform to the decree under 
execution and if the decree provides for reciprocal obligations, it 
must ensure compliance of those conditions by both the parties 
in pith and substance, unless the decree is a nullity which is not 
the case herein – Executing Court has no jurisdiction to vary the 
terms of the decree – It is only where the dispute as to the identity 
of the land which has to be given as part of the obligation to the 
* Author
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 
495
Maurice W. Innis v. Lily Kazrooni @ Lily Arif Shaikh
other side arises, the court can decide the same – In the instant 
case, no dispute of identity of the land falling into the shares of both 
the parties – Compromise decree clearly describes the portions 
of land falling into the shares of the parties – Thus, the Executing 
Court has to ensure that both the parties fulfil their obligations and 
exchange the land as per the decree and to see that the sale deed 
is executed as directed – Merely for the reasons that exchange of 
some portions of the land may not be practicable for the reason 
that constructions on it are not as per the sanctioned map or that 
part of it has been sold off, immaterial – Since the Executing Court 
in passing the orders has gone beyond its jurisdiction and instead 
of directing for the execution of the decree as it stands, altered 
its terms by changing certain portions of the land allotted to the 
parties, the same are unsustainable in law – Both the orders and 
the consequential order set aside – Execution Court to execute 
the decree in its terms and tenor. [Paras 24, 27, 29-31]
Case Law Cited
Jai Narain Ram Lundia v. Kedar Nath Khetan and Ors. [1956] 1 
SCR 62 : (1956) 1 SCC 75; Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai 
Abdul Rehman and Ors. [1971] 1 SCR 66 : (1970) 1 SCC 670; 
Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash [1977] 3 SCR 60 : (1977) 2 SCC 
662 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
List of Keywords
Execution of compromise decree passed in civil suit; Executing 
court, if can go beyond the decree; Compromise decree; Decree 
holder; Judgment debtor; Execution petition; Modifications made 
by the Executing Court.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.  
4321 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.04.2022 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No. 247 of 2022.
496
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv., Anand Dilip Landge, Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, 
Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde,  Shreenivas Patil, Rahul Prakash Pathak.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Gopal Jha, Sanjeev Baliyan, Tilak Vij, Shreyash Bhardwaj, Nimish 
Arjaria, Sawan Datta, Ms. Shireesha Sharma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.
1.	
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 
2.	
Leave granted.
3.	
The dispute in this appeal is in connection with the execution of a 
compromise decree dated 14.07.2017 passed in a Civil Suit No. 68 
of 2012.
4.	
The suit land measures 51R (54895 sq. feet). It is a non-agricultural 
land of plot No.396(A) situate in village Panchgani, Taluka 
Mahabaleshwar, Satara in the State of Ma

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.